GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119281266
From: "Terry Barton" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] was New to DNA - now Statistics of Parallel Mutations
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:27:46 -0400
Charles, I know how meticulous you are, so my question is probably
unnecessary, but I do want to be complete in my understanding.
Do your paper trails preclude the mutation at 449 from coming first and
being a branch mutation?
And, out of curiousity - why do you have #3074, who doesn't match,
separating the Karrigers from the main genetic family?
ps I haven't forgotten your mutation study. It's still on my list of things
From: Charles [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] was New to DNA - now Statistics of Parallel Mutations
For what it is worth, I will add to this thread that I have a parallel
mutation in my Kerchner surname project with marker DYS449. Two distinct
and separate descendant lines from the MRCA mutated from the ancestral
allele value of 30 to 31. This was confirmed by testing two males in
each branch. The traditional genealogical relationships in this group
was long known and well documented long before there was any DNA testing
done. One can see the relationships in the chart via the Henry Numbers.
Parallel mutations do occur. As to the statistics and frequency of their
occurrence, that I will leave to others.
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
|RE: [DNA] was New to DNA - now Statistics of Parallel Mutations by "Terry Barton" <>|